Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
macfarlan

Are We Getting What We Asked For?

Recommended Posts

I don't get much time to frequent this site as much as i used to, but when I do, it seems like it's been taken over by the kind of tory thinking that considers the mess we are in to be totally the fault of the last labour govt and that things will be much better under the conservatives, or at least the Con Dems. I realise the neccesity for spending cuts, and am aware of the complexity of the situation we find ourselves, and I don't particularly want to start a discussion over whose fault it is, but wanted to just point out an irony.

So at the risk of being flamed, I thought I'd post a couple of things I've been looking at during the last half hour or so to see what people on here think.

Firstly, this link to a graph from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) showing how public debt as a percentage of GDP might develop depending on 3 different scenarios. (I don't know how to embed the graph, perhaps someone can add it to the charts topic?)

and Secondly, a description of the post war settlement, by someone who can explain it better than I can;

"...the key features of the post war settlement, accepted in principle by the main political parties, were a mixed economy, free or largely free public sector healthcare and education, a guaranteed (though minimal) state pension and social welfare provision.

The consensus that this was the soundest basis for a healthy society was first rejected by Heath and the Tory Right, and then, much more dramatically, by Thatcher, who notoriously denied the existence of society, and unashamedly espoused greed as the best social driver.

This country has become a worse place to live, year by year, ever since then." Source My link

I suddenly realised the irony of being in favour of the type of right wing politics that push through broad cuts to the public sector at the same time as rallying against a result of the tory policy of greed; High House prices.

As I mentioned earlier, I realise the neccesity for spending cuts, and am aware of the complexity of the situation we find ourselves, but would be interested in people's thoughts about this particular point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get much time to frequent this site as much as i used to, but when I do, it seems like it's been taken over by the kind of tory thinking that considers the mess we are in to be totally the fault of the last labour govt and that things will be much better under the conservatives, or at least the Con Dems. I realise the neccesity for spending cuts, and am aware of the complexity of the situation we find ourselves, and I don't particularly want to start a discussion over whose fault it is, but wanted to just point out an irony.

So at the risk of being flamed, I thought I'd post a couple of things I've been looking at during the last half hour or so to see what people on here think.

Firstly, this link to a graph from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) showing how public debt as a percentage of GDP might develop depending on 3 different scenarios. (I don't know how to embed the graph, perhaps someone can add it to the charts topic?)

and Secondly, a description of the post war settlement, by someone who can explain it better than I can;

"...the key features of the post war settlement, accepted in principle by the main political parties, were a mixed economy, free or largely free public sector healthcare and education, a guaranteed (though minimal) state pension and social welfare provision.

The consensus that this was the soundest basis for a healthy society was first rejected by Heath and the Tory Right, and then, much more dramatically, by Thatcher, who notoriously denied the existence of society, and unashamedly espoused greed as the best social driver.

This country has become a worse place to live, year by year, ever since then." Source My link

I suddenly realised the irony of being in favour of the type of right wing politics that push through broad cuts to the public sector at the same time as rallying against a result of the tory policy of greed; High House prices.

As I mentioned earlier, I realise the neccesity for spending cuts, and am aware of the complexity of the situation we find ourselves, but would be interested in people's thoughts about this particular point.

There is no contradiction. High house prices have been caused by government interference in the market place, socialist interference.

If we had a citizens income as the only benefit, people would curtail what they spend on housing to what they can afford. Instead we have SMI and Housing Benefit, which means people spend as much as they can get from the government (taxpayer) on housing.

We also have open borders, and not enough buildable land to supply enough new housing to meet that demand from immigration, even if that housing could be built where people want to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get much time to frequent this site as much as i used to, but when I do, it seems like it's been taken over by the kind of tory thinking that considers the mess we are in to be totally the fault of the last labour govt and that things will be much better under the conservatives, or at least the Con Dems. I realise the neccesity for spending cuts, and am aware of the complexity of the situation we find ourselves, and I don't particularly want to start a discussion over whose fault it is, but wanted to just point out an irony.

So at the risk of being flamed, I thought I'd post a couple of things I've been looking at during the last half hour or so to see what people on here think.

Firstly, this link to a graph from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) showing how public debt as a percentage of GDP might develop depending on 3 different scenarios. (I don't know how to embed the graph, perhaps someone can add it to the charts topic?)

and Secondly, a description of the post war settlement, by someone who can explain it better than I can;

"...the key features of the post war settlement, accepted in principle by the main political parties, were a mixed economy, free or largely free public sector healthcare and education, a guaranteed (though minimal) state pension and social welfare provision.

The consensus that this was the soundest basis for a healthy society was first rejected by Heath and the Tory Right, and then, much more dramatically, by Thatcher, who notoriously denied the existence of society, and unashamedly espoused greed as the best social driver.

This country has become a worse place to live, year by year, ever since then." Source My link

I suddenly realised the irony of being in favour of the type of right wing politics that push through broad cuts to the public sector at the same time as rallying against a result of the tory policy of greed; High House prices.

As I mentioned earlier, I realise the neccesity for spending cuts, and am aware of the complexity of the situation we find ourselves, but would be interested in people's thoughts about this particular point.

Yes, we voted in the last labour government. The current government. And Thatcher.

WRT to free healthcare, education etc. It's not free. I've paid my taxes. In some instances > 50%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you show your agenda and lose credibility as soon as you cite blatently bogus propaganda and attribute it to Thatcher.

If you didn't, I might take the time to point out that I'd support Attlee's post-war socialist deal as the right thing for his time, but times change. FWIW, Thatcher was a great admirer of Attlee but also understood the need to change for her times. Today we need further change, and while Attlee's and Thatcher's respective legacies both have their place, neither can continue to be the defining theme of our times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The consensus that this was the soundest basis for a healthy society was first rejected by Heath and the Tory Right, and then, much more dramatically, by Thatcher, who notoriously denied the existence of society, and unashamedly espoused greed as the best social driver.

Pft. At least quote cleanly. Your whole viewpoint becomes drivel once anyone who cares has hit that point of leftist, twisted rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and Secondly, a description of the post war settlement, by someone who can explain it better than I can;

"...the key features of the post war settlement, accepted in principle by the main political parties, were a mixed economy, free or largely free public sector healthcare and education, a guaranteed (though minimal) state pension and social welfare provision.

The consensus that this was the soundest basis for a healthy society was first rejected by Heath and the Tory Right, and then, much more dramatically, by Thatcher, who notoriously denied the existence of society, and unashamedly espoused greed as the best social driver.

This country has become a worse place to live, year by year, ever since then." Source My link

This man below is doing a speech on the 'postwar settlement' in February. If your postwar settlement invoved having politicians provide an abundance of secure, well paid jobs forever and a day, with people ike Gordon Brown guiding us and providing it, then it was unrealistic.

There is a video of a young Thatcher I watched on YouTube some time ago, but now can't find. In a studio interview she was being pressured about the then recession and a future recovery. When the interviewer pressed her where the recovery was going to come from, she stressed she did not and could not know what enterprise would come up with. That it was for enterprise itself to find its own way, and all they could do was provide a sensible ground for enterprise to operate in. In 2008 Brown and Mandleson were trying to force feed us recovery in renewable technology sectors as if they know anything about anything.

Gresham College

Britain in the 20th Century: The Postwar Settlement

Speaker(s): Professor Vernon Bogdanor FBA CBE

Date/Time: 15/02/2011, 6pm

Venue: Museum of London

The central unifying theme of the postwar period is the construction of the 'postwar settlement' under Attlee's Labour government from 1945 to 1951 and its partial dismantling by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government from 1979 to 1990. The settlement rested upon a civic culture which developed out of the war, especially 1940 and the blitz. It was the product if an implied contract between government and people. But it was a guided settlement. There would be a people's future, but it would be implemented by the people's leaders in Westminster and Whitehall. That, perhaps was why it proved so susceptible to attack in the 1980s.

http://www.gresham.a...45&EventId=1098

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This current mess can be laid at the foot of parliament. Both parties are responsible for getting us to this point.

The current crisis has been building for decades and it was just a matter of time before the collapse happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I too blame Thatcher for todays woes, Labour were incapable of changing anything in the 13 years they were in power because they were still under the thumb of Thatcher. In fact I also blame her for Hitler coming power, I blame her for AIDs, I blame her for the snow we've had this year!

It is all her fault and nothing can undo the destructive powers that she unleashed! Who would have thought the Labour would have embraced the free markets even more so than herself, who would have thought that the whiter than white labour party would actually have two MPs going through courts at the moment, who would have thought that labour, the party of the people would have created a more unequal society than at any point in the last 60 years.

Labour had 13 years to ‘sort the country out’, yet they only succeeded in bankrupting it leaving the generations to come pot less! It is indeed, all Thatcher’s fault!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I too blame Thatcher for todays woes, Labour were incapable of changing anything in the 13 years they were in power because they were still under the thumb of Thatcher. In fact I also blame her for Hitler coming power, I blame her for AIDs, I blame her for the snow we've had this year!

Thatcher was responsible for implementing neo-liberal policies in Britain that outsourced most of our manufacturing

to the under-developed world, expecting us to become a service sector & therefore becoming totally dependent on credit.

Because Reagan did pretty much the same thing in the U.S., at the same time, they have ended up in a similar position

now, despite successive regimes.

Surely, nobody with any credibility is arguing that this isn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher was responsible for implementing neo-liberal policies in Britain that outsourced most of our manufacturing

to the under-developed world, expecting us to become a service sector & therefore becoming totally dependent on credit.

Because Reagan did pretty much the same thing in the U.S., at the same time, they have ended up in a similar position

now, despite successive regimes.

Surely, nobody with any credibility is arguing that this isn't the case.

Yes U can blame certain things on her, but if the left wing **** something up, they blame her, like instead of saying we let house prices get out of control, we allowed too much lending, we kept interest rates too low for too long, they blame it all on something someone did 20 years ago! They have absolutely no excuses, especially as they had 13 years of power to sort out her 'mistakes', but they didn't sort them out, they built on them and embraced the ideas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have absolutely no excuses, especially as they had 13 years of power to sort out her 'mistakes', but they didn't sort them out, they built on them and embraced the ideas!

New Labour only got into power, because they proved to big business that they would continue following Thatcher like policies

& then got the approval of rich elite owned mainstream media. Labour may never had gotten into power again, if they hadn't

switched to neo-liberal economic policies.

Besides, these were not merely 'mistakes' to be corrected or reverted, they were fundamental infrastructural changes that would

never have gotten the approval of big business & since Thatcher & Reagan won the propaganda war with regards to neo-liberal

economics, no democratic government on earth could have gotten away with turning the tide. These policies had to be played

out to their destructive conclusions. This is what happens in a world where the rich basically control the doctrinal systems.

The policies put in place by Thatcher & Reagan were implemented in the first place because capitalism had become unprofitable

since the people's struggle had brought about such vast improvements in conditions & higher wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no contradiction. High house prices have been caused by government interference in the market place, socialist interference.

High house prices have largely been caused by the irresponsible removal of essential Government interference in the market place, i.e. tory laissez faire - perpetuated by Labour as a non-socialist policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Thatcher, who notoriously denied the existence of society, and unashamedly espoused greed as the best social driver....

Not really. Have you ever read or heard the actual speech from which that quote is taken? If you're short of time just read the paragraph in bold

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.

How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks"like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot … you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have[fo 3] got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say:"You are responsible for your behaviour!" because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.